Probably not if you're going to ignore the point that practically every world champ had a rocketship underneath them but, surprise surprise, the point is only picked up when there's a British driver involved.

I think what my point was is that the FW-14B was as revolutionary as the Lotus 49 was, but it had the reliability and the speed whereas the Lotus 49 had some reliability issues in the 1967 campaign.

I know the MP4/4 was the most dominant race car of all time based on results, but the FW-14B was so far ahead of it in terms of technology just 4 years after the MP4/4. I just feel that Mansell could have been a multiple world champion quite easily...but he never knew how to get out of his own way at times.

As seen, there are multiple ways to define the question and how to answer. I take it this way. Best are those, who have been absolute top notch drivers during their era, being among the very best.

If I take it from such point of view, then Hamilton, Andretti and Rindt match the criteria. A good case can be made for Surtees too. Perhaps him and Gurney were viewed as closest to Clark as a driver. It is a bit difficult to rate, who was the best driver in 79-82, but Jones could be a contender. Perhaps even Scheckter, after all he beat Gilles Villeneuve himself to the title.

Mansell? Sorry, no. He was inferior to both Prost an Senna and roughly matched by Berger in Ferrari.

Damnnnn I feel strong power in this one. But the colour, the colour of tache is not what I would expect from best WDC. Still it is probably only enough to battle for epic fight with Kimi Rosberg.

I'd say for being a badass from 78 we should give him 3rd!

1st Mansell (oh you bastard, that moustache needed to have some aero advantages)2nd Rosberg (superior to his new son, but still lacks a cigg in mouth maybe and naked tors to challenge Mansell)3rd Andretti (badass but his moustache colour makes him lose few places)4th Rosberg's REAL Son

Here's one way to narrow the field. Were any of the nominees considered the best driver in F1 at any time?

Giuseppe Farina: #1 after Wimille's death and before Fangio and Ascari made him obsolete? I doubt it but maybe you know better. Mike Hawthorn: Obviously Moss. Phil Hill: Obviously Moss. John Surtees: Max kudos but how do you argue with Clark? Denny Hulme: Clark. Jochen Rindt: Maybe he was equal to Stewart but can you prove it? James Hunt: No. Just, no. Mario Andretti: Likely the greatest multi-discipline career ever. Whoever was the best from 68 to 82 got beaten now and then by Mario Andretti. So, he's got that going for him. Jody Scheckter: Under-rated but he's just not Niki. Alan Jones: Way under-rated. Too bad his contemporary was Gilles Villeneuve. Keke Rosberg: Better in a bad car than anyone but Gilles. *See his Williams years. *Theodore. Need I say more? Nigel Mansell: A giant among mega-giants. Cruellest timing. Damon Hill: With all due respect, commentary here is unnecessary. Jacques Villeneuve: Uh, no.Kimi Räikkönen: Close but no cigar. Lewis Hamilton: Max kudos but how do you argue with Alonso? Jenson Button: Best in 2009? Did anyone believe that? I think not.

I didn't see this coming but, call me crazy, I have to go with

Mario Andretti

because Colin Chapman and Enzo Ferrari had a ton of faith in him. He almost always rewarded that faith. Fuji 76 was the clincher for me but there's lots more evidence.

I don't think current 1x WDC's should be included in this list because their careers are not over yet. Comparing them to drivers who finished their careers with a championship is difficult to compare IMO. Plus its difficult to compare drivers spanning across different era's anyway. Can't vote on this one.

But from a purely F1 perspective it has to be Mansell, who for a couple of different strokes of luck could easily have denied Prost, Piquet and Senna one each of their championships (86,87 and 91). There's a reason he's usually included with those three as the superstars of their day.

Was expecting someone to chime in with this all too ubiquitous (and disgusting) a-historical, dilettante take on the 1978 season...In fact, Mario's championship has to surely be one of the more 'deserved' Championships as far as a driver's having a direct hand in helping transform a team back into World Championship form.

"Practically". In 1982 nobody had a rocketship, Ferrari was probably the closest, but Pironi screwed all that up for them.

And it's a complete, total and utter fabrication that Ronnie was faster than Mario in 1978. Look it up.

No need, I watched every race at the time, the only reason Andretti won was because Peterson was not allowed to overtake him.

And if you think the fw14 was a rocket, the Lotus 79 was probably the best car in the history of F1.

A shame that Chapman couldn't just let the drivers fight it out as I think Ronnie would have been WDC in 1978 had the gloves been off.

It wasn't even close between them in 1978. As I pointed out before:

-Andretti led 451 laps that year, the next highest was Reutemann on 183, Ronnie led 49;

-one of Ronnie's wins was when he led the final lap alone, a race that Mario was leading before retirement;

-44 of Ronnie's leading laps came in a race where Andretti retired on lap 1;

-Ronnie was not following Andretti all year, Andretti led twice as many laps as those in which Ronnie ran second;

-only in the Netherlands (where Mario had a problem) and France did Peterson follow Andretti for the majority of the race, and in both of those Mario out-qualified him - plus in France Mario had cars in the way before Peterson made it up to second;

-Mario had 8 poles, Ronnie 3, and those three poles were the only times Ronnie out-qualified Mario.

Same league as Prost? No way. Same league as Hakkinen, maybe, nut not more.

Given some better luck (and a more equal status in the team), Damon could've very easily been the 1993 Champion. 5 retirements (the majority not his fault), 2 of which were 20 points lost from Damon leading the races comfortably, meant that he ultimately couldn't finish as high as his performance level warranted (Senna may have been achieving God status in the McLaren, but the Williams was the fastest car and Damon was just as quick as Prost most of the time).

There was a potential run of 5 wins available to Damon had his engine not given up at Silverstone, and had his Goodyear held out at Hockenheim. Those 20 points went to his teammate... giving him the title in the end..

Even if you just adjust the results of those Grand Prix, the outlook for the standings changes greatly...

Ok, I haven't taken into account what that run of races might've done psychologically for Hill, for Prost and their position within the team, plus Alain had reliability issues of his own that year, but it shows how crucial those two races were and could've been in the title had things gone differently. It also shows just how close to Prost Hill was in just his first full year...